4.6 Article

Healthcare avoidance by people who inject drugs in Bangkok, Thailand

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 E301-E308

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdv143

关键词

health services utilization; injection drug use; peer-based interventions; stigma and discrimination; Thailand

资金

  1. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
  2. Canada Research Chairs Program through a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Inner City Medicine
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Award [MSH-141971]
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Although people who inject drugs (IDU) often contend with various health-related harms, timely access to health care among this population remains low. We sought to identify specific individual, social and structural factors constraining healthcare access among IDU in Bangkok, Thailand. Methods Data were derived from a community-recruited sample of IDU participating in the Mitsampan Community Research Project between July and October 2011. We assessed the prevalence and correlates of healthcare avoidance due to one's drug use using multivariate logistic regression. Results Among 437 participants, 112 (25.6%) reported avoiding health care because they were IDU. In multivariate analyses, factors independently associated with avoiding health care included having ever been drug tested by police [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.801, experienced verbal abuse (AOR = 3.15), been discouraged from engaging in usual family activities (AOR = 3.27), been refused medical care (AOR = 10.90), experienced any barriers to health care (AOR = 4.87) and received healthcare information and support at a drop-in centre (AOR = 1.92) (all P < 0.05). Conclusions These findings highlight the need to address the broader policy environment, which perpetuates the criminatization and stigmatization of IDU, and to expand peer-based interventions to facilitate access to health care for IDU in this setting,

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据